Claudio Pandozi

Head-up tilt testing potentiated with low-dose sublingual isosorbide dinitrate : a simplified time-saving approach for the evaluation of unexplained syncope

BACKGROUND Head-up tilt testing is widely used in the clinical assessment of patients with unexplained syncope. However, the lack of a standard methodology and the conflicting results concerning sensitivity and specificity of the procedure have prompted further studies to define a more cost-effective approach for tilt testing. OBJECTIVES Our clinical investigation was undertaken to assess the diagnostic value in unexplained syncope of a simple and time-saving protocol for head-up tilt testing, including low-dose sublingual isosorbide dinitrate administration. PATIENTS AND METHODS A group of 73 consecutive patients (43 women and 30 men, mean age 39.6+/-21.8 years) with unexplained syncope despite conventional clinical cardiovascular and neurologic assessment and 10 asymptomatic control subjects underwent head-up tilt testing with isosorbide dinitrate challenge. Participants were tilted at 60 degrees for 30 minutes without medication; if no symptoms occurred, 1.25 mg of isosorbide dinitrate was administered sublingually and tilting was continued for an additional 15 minutes. RESULTS During the drug-free phase of the test 14 (19.2%) patients had syncope. After isosorbide dinitrate administration syncope occurred in another 28 patients (38.3%); minor symptoms in association with hypotension developed in 10 (13.7%) patients. The test result was negative in all control subjects. The positive rate and specificity of head-up tilt testing with isosorbide dinitrate provocation were 57.5% and 100%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS This new practical diagnostic procedure was found to be fairly sensitive and clearly specific in inducing a vasovagal reflex in patients with syncope of uncertain origin. Consequently, such approach could give a significant contribution in the diagnostic workup of these patients.

Transthoracic DC Shock May Represent a Serious Hazard in Pacemaker Dependent Patients

External defibrillation is widely used for the termination of various atrial and ventricular tachyarrhythmias, including pacemaker patients. Our study was intended to evaluate the effects of DC shocks in 36 patients with unipolar pacemakers implanted in the right pectoral region (25 DDD, 10 VVI, 3 AAI). The shocks were delivered with paddles on the anterior surface of the thorax, as far as possible away from the pacemaker. The pacing output was programmed at 0.5 msec and 5 V (25 patients), 4 V (1 patient), and 2.5 V (10 patients). Transient loss of capture occurred in 18 patients (50%). These patients, compared with those without capture failure, received higher peak and cumulative shock energies, respectively, 216 ± 99 versus 123 ± 50 joules (P < 0.002) and 352 ± 62 versus 147 ± 98 joules (P < 0.004) and had a lower pacemaker pulse amplitude (4.0 ± 1.2 vs 4.6 ± 1.0 V, P = 0.11). Failure to capture lasted from 5 seconds to 30 minutes (mean 157 sec). In 15 patients the ventricular stimulation threshold was measured before and serially after cardioversion. A six‐fold threshold increase was observed 3 minutes after the shock (P < 0.004) with gradual recovery to nearly baseline values at 24 hours. Transient sensing failure occurred in 7 of the 17 patients in whom it could be evaluated (41%). Furthermore, three cases of shock induced pacemaker malfunctions were observed requiring replacement of the stimulator in two patients. In conclusion, the incidence of loss of capture in pacemaker patients subjected to electrical cardioversion/defibrillation is high. The phenomenon is due to an abrupt rise in stimulation threshold, caused by the electrical shock, and may represent a serious hazard in pacemaker dependent patients. The risk of pacing failure could be reduced by utilizing low shock energies when possible, and by programming the pacemaker at its maximal output before cardioversion.

Radiofrequency Catheter Ablation of Idiopathic Left Ventricular Outflow Tract Tachycardia: Utility of Intracardiac Echocardiography

Idiopathic LVOT Tachycardia. Introduction: The site of origin of idiopathic ventricular tachycardia (VT) arising from the left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) may be closely related to the aortic valve leaflets, and radiofrequency (RF) delivery potentially can damage them. Intracardiac echocardiography (ICE) can identify accurately the ablation electrode and anatomic landmarks, and contact with the endocardium can be easily assessed. The aim of this study was to define the utility and the accuracy of ICE in guiding RF ablation of idiopathic VT of the LVOT.

DDD Pacing with Rate Drop Response Function Versus DDI with Rate Hysteresis Pacing for Cardioinhibitory Vasovagal Syncope

Background: The effectiveness of cardiac pacing in preventing vasovagal syncope remains controversial. However, DDI pacing with rate hysteresis has been reported to prevent the recurrence of Cardioinhibitory vasovagal syncope in up to 35% of affected subjects and to reduce the overall incidence of syncopal episodes in the others. Recently, DDD pacing with a new promising rate drop response function (Medtronic Thera‐I model 7960) has become available in clinical practice. Aim of the study: The aim of the present open trial was to test the effectiveness of this new pacing modality in patients with Cardioinhibitory vasovagal syncope. Study population and methods: The study population included 20 patients (12 males and 8 females; mean age 61.1 ± 14 yrs) with recurrent syncope (mean number of prior episode = 6.8, range 5–11) and Cardioinhibitory responses during two head‐up tilt tests: the first diagnostic and the second during drug therapy with either β‐blockade or etilephrine. The study patients were randomized to receive either DDI pacing with rate hysteresis (8 patients) or DDD pacing with rate drop response function (11 patients). The head‐up tilt test performed 1 month after pacemaker implantation was positive in 3 of 12 patients (25%) with DDD pacing with rate drop response function and in 5 of 8 patients (62.5%) with DDI pacing with rate hysteresis. The mean duration of follow‐up was 17.7 ± 7.4 months. During follow‐up no patients with a DDD pacemaker with rate drop response function had syncope, while 3 of 8 patients with a DDI pacemaker with rate hysteresis had recurrence of syncope (P < 0.05). Conclusions: These data suggest that DDD pacing with rate drop response function is effective in Cardioinhibitory vasovagal syncope and may be preferable to DDI pacing with rate hysteresis.

Local Capture by Atrial Pacing in Spontaneous Chronic Atrial Fibrillation

BACKGROUND Atrial fibrillation (AF) is considered to be maintained by multiple reentrant circuits without or with a very short excitable gap. However, the possibility of local atrial capture has been shown recently in experimental AF or induced AF in humans. METHODS AND RESULTS This study was undertaken to evaluate the feasibility of atrial capture-suggestive of an excitable gap-in spontaneous chronic AF. Decremental pacing was performed in 47 right atrial sites in 14 patients with chronic AF, not taking antiarrhythmic drugs. A Franz catheter (for pacing and monophasic action potential recording) and a recording quadripolar catheter positioned about 10 mm apart were used. Local capture was achieved in 41 (87.2%) sites for a total of 100 captures. In 71 episodes the capture was lost within 15 seconds, while in the remaining 29, pacing was stopped after 15 seconds of stable capture. AF types immediately before capture were type 1 in 83 and type 2 in 17 episodes. Type 3 AF was never captured. Pacing cycle at capture was 175.7 +/- 20.9 ms. The baseline atrial interval (FF) was 185.4 +/- 24.5, significantly longer than the FF recorded during pacing immediately before capture (176.0 +/- 19.8 ms) (P < .02). CONCLUSIONS During spontaneous chronic AF in humans, (1) local capture by atrial pacing is possible up to at least 15 mm from the pacing site, (2) regional entrainment is possible during type 1 and type 2 AF but not type 3 AF, and (3) pacing before capture accelerates AF, probably by transient or local capture. These findings suggest that an excitable gap is present in chronic AF, therefore supporting the hypothesis that leading circle reentry is not the unique electrophysiological mechanism maintaining the arrhythmia.

Single shock endocavitary low energy intracardiac cardioversion of chronic atrial fibrillation.

Background.Discomfort related to low-energy internal cardioversion (LEIC) represents a real problem in patients (pts) with atrial fibrillation (AF). The aim of our study was to verify if a single shock could restore sinus rhythm (SR) with a lower discomfort for the pt.Methods. Thirty pts with chronic AF were randomized to receive a single 350 V shock (15 pts) or multiple shocks of increasing energy (15 pts). Three leads were positioned, respectively, in the coronary sinus and in the lateral right wall for shock delivery, and in the right ventricular apex for R wave synchronization. Truncated, biphasic shocks were used. In the first group a single 350 V shock was directly delivered and a second 400 V shock was given only if SR has not been restored. In the second group, beginning at 50 volts the voltage was increased in steps of 50 volts until SR restoration. No patient was sedated. After each shock the pts were asked to rate their discomfort on a scale of 1 to 5 (1 = not perceived, 5 = severe discomfort)Results. SR was restored in all the subjects. In group 1 SR was obtained in 12/15 (80%) pts with the first 350 V (8.1±0.8 joules) shock, while the remaining 3 patients required the second 400 V (10.2±10.3 joules) shock. In group 2 the mean atrial defibrillation threshold was 346.7±29.7 volts (8.0±1.5 joules). Then discomfort score was 2.5±0.6 in group 1 and 3.3±0.6 in group 2 (p < 0.01).Conclusions. A single shock of 350 V restores SR in the majority of pts with chronic AF; by use this new approach, LEIC is tolerated better than the multiple shocks step-up protocol.

Low Energy Intracardiac Cardioversion of Persistent Atrial Fibrillation

The aims of the study were to verify the efficacy and safety of low energy internal Cardioversion (LEIC) in patients with persistent at rial fibrillation (AF) and to identify the factors affecting the at rial defihrillation threshold (ADT). Forty‐nine patients with persistent (lasting ≥ 10 days) AF underwent LEIC. In each patient, two 6 Fr custom‐made catheters with large active surface areas were positioned in the coronary sinus (cathode) and the lateral right wall (anode), respectively, for shock delivery, and a tetrapolar lead was placed in the fight ventricular apex for R wave synchronization. Truncated, biphasic (3 ms+3 ms). exponential shocks were used, beginning at 50 V and increasing in steps of 50 V until sinus rhythm had been restored. Mild sedation (diazepam 5 mg IV) was administered to 12 patients. Sinus rhythm was restored in all the subjects with mean voltage and energy levels of 352.0 ± 80.3 V and 8.2 ± 3.4 J, respectively. The ADT in patients pretreated with amiodarone (6.4 ± 1.8 J) was lower than that of patients who had not received any antiarrhythmic drugs (9.2 ± 3.7) (P = 0.04). No ventricular arrhythmias were induced by any of the atrial shocks, and no other complications were observed. During a mean follow‐up of 162.9 ± 58.7 days, AF recurred in 21 (43%) patients; 71% of these occurred in the first week after Cardioversion. LEIC is effective in restoring sinus rhythm in patients with persistent AF. The technique seems to be safe and does not require general anesthesia or, in most cases, sedation. Patients pretreated with amiodarone have lower ADTs.

Long-Term Follow-Up of Right Atrial Ablation in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation:

Introduction: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and the impact on quality of life of a new ablative approach to the right atrium in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF).

Combining Antiarrhythmic Drugs and Implantable Devices Therapy: Benefits and Outcome

At least 50% of patients who received an ICD have been treated with antiarrhythmic drugs (AAD). The potential indications for combining antiarrhythmic drugs and ICD are generally the following: reduction of the number of episodes of ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation and therefore of the number of shocks, improving patients quality of life and extending the battery life of the ICD, prevention of supraventricular arrhythmias and/or control of their rate, lengthening of the tachycardia cycle length to allow ventricular tachycardia conversion by antitachycardia pacing and reduction of the number of episodes of syncope.Although previous papers reported conflicting results about pharmacologic therapy in reducing the frequency of iCD shocks, some recent randomized prospective studies showed the efficacy of pharmacologic therapy in reducing the frequency of ICD shocks.The use of antiarrhythmic drugs can have also adverse effect: an increase in the defibrillation threshold, an increase in the pacing threshold and an increase in the VT cycle length leading to detection failure. We have also to consider that some advantages derived from antiarrhythmic drugs can be reached by the new devices with atrial sensing and pacing and/or the possibility of atrial defibrillation or by using catheter ablation as adjunctive therapy to ICD.For these reasons, the concomitant use of antiarrhythmic drugs and ICD should be evaluated in each patient in relation to specific clinical and electrophysiologic features including: the frequency, the rate and the clinical presentation of the ventricular arrhythmia, the effect of the selected drug on the defibrillation threshold, the defibrillation threshold at the implant, the effect of the selected drug on the ventricular function and the likelihood of proarrhythmic events.

Indications for dual-chamber (DDD) pacing in implantable cardioverter-defibrillator patients.

New technologic development of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) keeps up with the exponential increase of their use for primary and secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death. The first-generation ICD with limited shock capability alone could be considered adequate in most cardiac arrest victims, but it was not suitable for sudden death prevention in all high-risk patients with cardiac disease. The second-generation ICD was comprised of hybrid pacemaker-defibrillator systems that provided on-demand ventricular antibradycardia pacing. The third-generation devices include additional functions, such as antitachycardia pacing for ventricular tachycardia (VT) reversion and low-energy ventricular cardioversion, in addition to ventricular defibrillation and single-chamber ventricular demand pacing. In the near future, advanced dual-chamber atrioventricular (AV) pacing and defibrillating systems will also be available. The dual chamber ICD will allow atrial inhibited/dual-chamber (AAI/DDD) rate-responsive pacing, simultaneous atrial and ventricular sensing to optimize the arrhythmia identification, and ICD shock delivery in the proper arrhythmia-related chamber. Clinical benefits of these devices compared with their cost and complexity will require careful evaluation.